Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Canadians: Petition in Support of Motion 312: To Amend Section 223 of Canada's Criminal Code according to 21st Century Medical Evidence


Whereas Canada’s 400 year old definition of a human being says a child does not become a human being until the moment of complete birth, contrary to twenty-first century medical evidence;

And whereas Parliament has a solemn duty to reject any law that says some human beings are not human;

Therefore, we call upon the House of Commons in Parliament assembled to confirm that every human being is recognized by Canadian law as human by amending Section 223 of our Criminal Code in such a way as to reflect twenty-first century medical evidence.

Motion put forward by Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth

Please go here to download the petition. Ask your pastor if he could mention the petition in the Sunday announcement and/ or the bulletin.  Ask if you can collect signatures after mass.  Let's get this motion passed
If you want some background go to this page and click on the links on the SideBar.
Now we know, let's do. 
I mean really, if the House of Parliament have the competence to change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman, to two  persons because the times have changed.  Isn't it only right that the definition of human being also be changed and modernized? 


salvage said...


This is a silly thing for a lot of reasons but it does bring up an interesting point about Harper and he cynical use of the Canadian pro-life movement.

He will never, ever, ever touch the live wire that is the pro-choice debate, the Liberals and NDP would LOVE it, a battle they would win on so many levels!

But every once in awhile he need to fan the embers, remind the base of their anger and make it at least LOOK like they care. Remember no one in the Conservative Reform Alliance Party ever does anything without the PMO's sign off, not even the backest of benchers.

They don't care about other people's pregnancy like the majority of Canadians.

Puff the Magic Dragon said...

You are most definitely entitled to your opinion. And I agree with most of what you say. Hey I can't even itemize what you say is wrong.

As a Canadian you know that abortion is permitted in Canada because the abortion law was struck down, not because of a woman's right to choose, but because the law could not be administered evenly across the country. There is no written law granting women the right to an abortion. The "right" stems from the law's silence on the matter. You are intelligent, you must know that the laws are majorally prohibitive, that is: If there is no law prohibiting an act then it is permitted.

That permission is not the same as a constitutional right to do something. Further,The Supreme Court did say, the government had the right to come up with an abortion law, provided that it could be applied universally across the country.

Also re Harper's promise not to bring it up again. AH, yeah, I agree he is a scumbag, and a liar, and I wish he had been honest from the beginning. But he is a politician, and you can generally tell when a politician is lying because his lips move. When a politician makes one promise, be very careful of the actual words of the promise. In fact when he said "We will not be opening up the abortion issue..." The abortion issue had not been discussed for decades. Why did he need to REASSURE us he wouldn't do it. He never said anything about updating definitions. And since the people of Canada gave parliament the competence to change established definitions and update them, why then can't the definition of human being be updated as well. It is the basic definition required for application of our Charter of Rights.

salvage said...

Yup, that's all about right save for:

>why then can't the definition of human being be updated as well

Because the definition is full and complete and does not include a fetus.

Unless it is free and clear of the woman's body it is not a person, the woman is and her rights to be absolute master over her body supersedes everything.

Puff the Magic Dragon said...

The bill isn't to redefine "Person" . BTW The last time "Person" was redefined in Canadian law was to include women.

Defining human being does not grant personhood.
Even though women were human beings, because they did fit the definition of human being, they were not considered persons until until 5 women from Alberta asked the Supreme COurt to declare women persons under the law in 1920- KNown as the Persons Case. ONly Persons could vote, only persons could sign contracts etc etc. WOmen, though human beings were not persons until the legal definition of "person" was changed.

Blacks in the US were not considered full human beings, or persons until the legal definition was changed in the US.

Legal definitions are updated and changed all the time based on the requesite criterion. This definition would be updated to be in line with modern natural scientific evidence. What makes you think medical science would side against you?

salvage said...

Well women and Blacks are obviously people and their lack of person-hood for women came from your religion. Women were responsible for The Fall and thus could not be trusted with anything important like property and voting.

And it's easier to make slaves out of dehumanized people.

But they are not fetuses, that's a pretty important distinction.

Fetus are not people and therefore are only as protected as the mother wants them to be.

Puff the Magic Dragon said...

Fetus are not people and therefore are only as protected as the mother wants them to be.

It isn't a motion to redefine "Person" it is to legally define "Human Being"

Again, why do you think Natural Science would side against you, that you don't want the definition examined according to modern scientific standards?

salvage said...

>Again, why do you think Natural Science would side against you,

I'm not sure what you mean by "Natural Science" there is science and it's pretty cut and dried and the subject, fetuses are not peoples or persons or anything other than fetuses.

Scripture to keep in mind

Six things there are, which the Lord hateth, and the seventh his soul detesteth: [17] Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, [18] A heart that deviseth wicked plots, feet that are swift to run into mischief, [19]A deceitful witness that uttereth lies, and him that soweth discord among brethren. [20] My son, keep the commandments of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother. ***Cf:Douay-Rheims Proverbs 6: 16-20


I declare that I have no intent to acknowledge, distribute or encourage anything contrary to Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and the Apostolic See. I submit myself and all the contents of this blog to the judgment of the Church.